Effects of unilateral premolar extraction treatment on the dental arch forms of Class II subdivision malocclusions

Differences in third molar development and angulation in class II subdivision malocclusions

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the developmental stages and angulations of third molars between the class II and class I sides in class II subdivision malocclusions.

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed using panoramic x‑rays of 38 individuals (mean age: 15.5 years; 24 females, 14 males) with class II subdivision malocclusions, which were further divided into type 1 and 2 subgroups according to midline deviation, and a control group of 42 individuals (mean age: 17.0 years; 30 females, 12 males) with normal occlusion. Third molars were categorized using the developmental stages defined by the Demirjian method. Angles between the third molars and horizontal reference lines and also to the second molars were measured.

RESULTS

No difference was found in developmental stages or angulations between the left and right third molars in the control group. In the class II subdivision malocclusion cases, no difference in third molar developmental stages was observed, but the angle between the long axes of the mandibular third and second molars was significantly greater on the class II side. In the type 2 subgroup, developmental stage of the maxillary third molar was more advanced on the class II side. In both subgroups, the angles of the maxillary third molars' long axis to the interorbital plane differed significantly between the two sides.

CONCLUSION

Class II subdivision malocclusion may cause differences in third molar development and angulations between the two sides. Orthodontic treatment should be planned considering the third molars in this malocclusion.

Alternative approach using miniscrew-anchored sliding jig to correct maxillary midline deviation in a patient with unilateral missing premolar

This case report describes the use of a miniscrew-anchored sliding jig (SJ) to distalize molars in a patient with maxillary midline deviation. A 41-year-old female presented with a chief complaint of maxillary midline deviation toward the left caused by prior orthodontic treatment involving unilateral extraction of a maxillary left premolar. Clinical examination revealed facial symmetry and a straight profile. The maxillary midline was deviated 2.5 mm to the left. The patient was treated with molar distalization using miniscrew-anchored SJs. Midline correction and alignment were obtained with maxillary unilateral distalization and mandibular full-arch distalization. The total active treatment period was 32 months. Appropriate occlusion and centered midlines were maintained after 29 months of retention. Our results suggest that the treatment method described herein is effective to distalize the unilateral posterior segment in either arch.

Agreement of the clinician's choice of archwire selection on conventional and virtual models

OBJECTIVES

To compare archwire selection on dental casts with archwire selection using a three-dimensional (3D) software program (OrthoAid) and assess agreement between clinicians.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The best-fitting archwires were selected for dental casts of 100 patients with malocclusion using two approaches by three orthodontists. The first method was to visually determine the fitness of five preformed nickel titanium archwires to the arch form on a dental cast (subjective method). The second method was archwire selection on a virtual image of the same cast by means of 3D software (objective method). Agreement between selections performed by the orthodontists was calculated using Kappa statistics. The accuracy of fit of the archwires to the curves fitted to the arch form was also calculated or reversely assessed by means of the root mean square (RMS) for both methods using the Dahlberg formula.

RESULTS

The mean RMS of the distances between the patient arch forms and the archwires for the subjective method was 1.163-1.366 mm. The agreement of selections between orthodontists was 42%-58% (Kappa ranged from .074 to .382). Using the 3D software (objective method), the mean RMS decreased to 0.966-1.171 mm, and agreement increased to 47% to 84% (Kappa ranged from .444 to .747).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 3D computer software for archwire selection in patients with malocclusion provided better adaptation and interexaminer reliability.

Do premolar extractions necessarily result in a flat face? No, when properly indicated

The esthetic benefits are among the main goals of orthodontic treatment; therefore, tooth extractions have been avoided as a protocol for orthodontic treatment because they may impair the facial profile. The present article discusses aspects as the magnitude and response of soft tissue profile due to changes in incisor positioning, and the effect of different sequences of premolar extraction. One case report illustrates the subject, with favorable and stable esthetic and occlusal outcomes five years after orthodontic treatment with extraction of second premolars.

Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes in class II subdivision treatment with asymmetric extraction protocols

Background

This study cephalometrically compared the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes consequent to one and three-premolar extraction protocols of class II subdivision malocclusion treatment.

Methods

A sample of 126 lateral cephalometric radiographs from 63 patients was selected and divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 31 type 1 class II subdivision malocclusion patients treated with asymmetric extractions of two maxillary premolars and one mandibular premolar on the class I side, with an initial mean age of 13.58 years. Group 2 consisted of 32 type 2 class II subdivision malocclusion patients treated with asymmetric extraction of one maxillary first premolar on the class II side, with an initial mean age of 13.98 years. t test was used for intergroup comparison at the pre- and posttreatment stages and to compare the treatment changes.

Results

Group 1 had greater maxillomandibular sagittal discrepancy reduction and greater maxillary first molar extrusion. Group 2 had mandibular incisor labial inclination and protrusion, and group 1 had mandibular incisor lingual inclination and retraction. Maxillary molar asymmetry increased in group 2, while mandibular molar asymmetry increased in group 1.

Conclusions

The treatment changes produced by these two class II subdivision protocols are different to adequately satisfy the different needs for types 1 and 2 class II subdivision malocclusions.